(Leaked) EU Considering Bringing Back Removable Batteries?

[tridy]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Why is everyone so overcome by the need to have their phone water proof?  I mean how many people really need to go swimming with their phone?  Watches I can understand, but for majority of people a normal ip5 rated phone is more than fine. 

I assume that this is the same as number of cameras, the higher the IP index - the more selling points there are. This is one of the innovation trends. The next step with all-glass-phone, they are going to say that you can safely use it in space.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, tridy said:

I assume that this is the same as number of cameras, the higher the IP index - the more selling points there are. This is one of the innovation trends. The next step with all-glass-phone, they are going to say that you can safely use it in space.

But  increasing the IP rating doesn't make the phone do something better when there is no future need for it.  Vast majority of phones lasted for decades (until they started making them week and thin) without higher IP ratings.

[tridy]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

But  increasing the IP rating doesn't make the phone do something better when there is no future need for it.  Vast majority of phones lasted for decades (until they started making them week and thin) without higher IP ratings.

Sorry, I tried being sarcastic there. Obviously it does not make a phone do anything better. Having multiple cameras does not do miracles either but it does bump up the price.

 

 

[JoeCoke]

I'm all about this. Easily swappable batteries extend the life of a phone by a lot. While people like us will replace our batteries regardless, you'd be surprised at how many normal people junk the whole damn ohone because it won't hold a charge.

 

Still happily using my Galaxy s5, no need to pointlessly upgrade when it already does everything I want from it. I can go over 30 hours on one charge, 5 years later.

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, 2Buck said:

I'm all about this. Easily swappable batteries extend the life of a phone by a lot. While people like us will replace our batteries regardless, you'd be surprised at how many normal people junk the whole damn ohone because it won't hold a charge.

 

Still happily using my Galaxy s5, no need to pointlessly upgrade when it already does everything I want from it. I can go over 30 hours on one charge too.

Not only that, it's easier to carry a couple of spare batteries than it is to carry power bank and cable.

[Intrafinesse]

I'm all for this, but I wonder if it would impact the phones rated water resistance.

If you drop a phone into shallow water supposedly its resistant to a few fete? 

With this replacement mechanism  would it leak?

[RejZoR]

It would also help if phones had built in charging logic that's fully under user control. Like being able to only set charging of battery up to certain level with a hard limit. So you could set it to 80% charge and phone would never charge past that unless you allow it to. Instead you have to rely on battery charge alarms and have phone around to hear it when it reaches 80% and then you unplug it. I'm doing like this with my iPhone XR for 1 year and I still have battery at 100% health and it still lasts for almost 2 days, depending on how I use it. In a way it's actually baffling that this still isn't a thing in every phone. Then again they want to sell you a new one every year so I guess it's not in their interest to make non-replaceable batteries last longer by charging them in a less destructive way. Or a feature like Apple has in iOS 13 where phone charges to 80% during night and tops up to 100% just before you usually wake up, but it's not controllable by user and it's suppose to adapt to your charging and wake up routine which I can't put to the test so I rely on battery alarms...

 

The worst thing for Li-ion/Li-poly batteries is to sit at 100% for long periods of time. Which for casual users means, they plug it in the evening, today's fast chargers charge the phone to 100% in what, max 2 hours even on slower chargers and then it sits 6+ hours at 100% every single night. Which means it sits at 100% over 1/4 of its entire life. Also charge cycles "use up" different if you charge it to 100% compared to charging it only to 80%. Or even less.

[kirashi]

On 2/28/2020 at 2:20 PM, Phill104 said:

What concerns me about this is the extra plastic that will probably be needed per device. It might not sound much but will add up quite quickly. An extra layer for the housing and also some around the battery to protect it from bending or puncture.

Erm, I mean, sure, it would increase the plastic used for the back of the phone, which would also increase the phones' durability, too, but there's no extra layer around the battery simply because we go back to removable batteries... Whether a battery is removable or not, it's still physically made the same, including having an outer protective layer. I'd recommend watching Scotty's video on battery production to see exactly how they're made.

 

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, kirashi said:

Erm, I mean, sure, it would increase the plastic used for the back of the phone, which would also increase the phones' durability, too, but there's no extra layer around the battery simply because we go back to removable batteries... Whether a battery is removable or not, it's still physically made the same, including having an outer protective layer. I'd recommend watching Scotty's video on battery production to see exactly how they're made.

 

That outer layer is nothing but a foil wrap. I am aware some of the later phones, such as the horrible windows phone only had a thin wrap

but it is still more than those on internal batteries. 

[dalekphalm]

On 2/28/2020 at 5:00 PM, Waffles13 said:

I can't speak for others but I would never even consider taking my phone to someone else to do a repair. Some of that may be personal pride but a big part is just that the idea of a professional repair place is foreign to me. I'm sure that Apple users are more used to it, but I'm guessing many others aren't. 

Sure - but you're not an average user (it has nothing to do with Apple vs Android users). Most users - regardless of brand, are not going to do a repair themselves. So the vast majority of users are going to take their phone to a repair shop, if they need to get it repaired.

On 2/28/2020 at 5:00 PM, Waffles13 said:

Not to mention that it's a whole hell of a lot easier to just order a battery off of Amazon and spend 1-5 minutes throwing it in to an easily replaceable phone than it is to locate a repair shop, schedule an appointment and then travel there and either wait or come back later to pick it up. Plus even if the cost difference is small, I know that I find it much easier to justify $25 for the slight convenience of charging my phone less often than I would if it was $45 or $50.

Fair point, but again, regular users don't care.

 

Back when every laptop had a replaceable battery, I worked as a repair tech for Staples. I regularly had people come in with a laptop that had a shit battery, and have us order a replacement and install it - despite the fact that they could have found a battery on eBay or Amazon for half the price.

On 2/28/2020 at 5:00 PM, Waffles13 said:

I don't particularly care about the environmental argument of phone waste (seems like one of the most laughably small environmental impacts I can think of), I just care about the practical one. And practically speaking, making phones and electronics more readily user serviceable has benefits and essentially no downsides to the end user and minimal impact to manufacturers. 

True - but the argument for this law is about the environmental impact and e-waste reduction.

On 2/28/2020 at 10:00 PM, GDRRiley said:

but what if I want to save 20$ and do it myself.

You can already do that, right now.

On 2/28/2020 at 10:00 PM, GDRRiley said:

I'd hope this also comes with making OEMs sell batteries for less than they charge for a first party repair. if it is expected to take 30 mins by a tech making 20$ an hour require it to be at least that much cheaper. (also got to make sure it is based on median times so they can't be like we expect to take 10 mins).

Highly unlikely that this will drastically change the pricing structure on replacement batteries. If anything, I would not be surprised if the battery cost went up.

[JoostinOnline]

Quote

The documents would allegedly see the light of day mid-March, but there’s no real reason to worry just yet.

I don't get this part. While I'm usually against the EU forcing standards, I don't understand why they're acting like this is something to worry about. Removable batteries are awesome. The last time I had one was in an S4 (before Samsung really cranked up its prices). I have a Oneplus 6, and while the rest of the phone is fine, the battery is really starting to see some wear. I don't want to give up my headphone jack.

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You can already do that, right now.

yes but not with genuine OEM batteries (there is plenty of good clones but i'd be nice if the battery health worked)

[dalekphalm]

Just now, GDRRiley said:

yes but not with genuine OEM batteries (there is plenty of good clones but i'd be nice if the battery health worked)

This is true for Apple devices - I'm sure you can get genuine OEM batteries for some (though certainly not all) Android devices.

 

But in any case, the cost of an Apple first party repair for a new battery is so low that the average user is likely going to go to the Apple store regardless.

 

For techie people who want to do it themselves? You'd be better off with a law that forces OEM's to sell parts for x amount of time (eg: for the supported life of the product - whatever).

 

As far as I'm aware, the leaked EU documents specifically say that it will force batteries to be removable. Not that it will force OEM's to sell you a battery by itself.

[GDRRiley]

9 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

For techie people who want to do it themselves? You'd be better off with a law that forces OEM's to sell parts for x amount of time (eg: for the supported life of the product - whatever).

 

As far as I'm aware, the leaked EU documents specifically say that it will force batteries to be removable. Not that it will force OEM's to sell you a battery by itself.

I know in my original post I stated that I wish that would be added.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

I know in my original post I stated that I wish that would be added.

Indeed - that by itself would be much more significant than forcing the batteries to be removable.

 

They should go that direction first, before forcing this (or do both).

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed - that by itself would be much more significant than forcing the batteries to be removable.

 

They should go that direction first, before forcing this (or do both).

you'd have to though add some cost stipulation so you stop practice like apple charging so much for parts. if you can sell it complete for a cost every part should be able to be bought and self assembled for less than 10% over the product

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

you'd have to though add some cost stipulation so you stop practice like apple charging so much for parts. if you can sell it complete for a cost every part should be able to be bought and self assembled for less than 10% over the product

That'd be an incredibly dangerous line to cross though - you don't really want government to dictate how much profit a company can earn on a product (so long as market forces allow other competition).

 

Because then the question becomes "how much is okay?" - for example, your arbitrary 10% of the cost of the product - why 10%? What if one particular part costs a significant margin of the overall parts cost? Why 10% and not 5% or 15% or 25%? Who gets to decide?

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

That'd be an incredibly dangerous line to cross though - you don't really want government to dictate how much profit a company can earn on a product (so long as market forces allow other competition).

 

Because then the question becomes "how much is okay?" - for example, your arbitrary 10% of the cost of the product - why 10%? What if one particular part costs a significant margin of the overall parts cost? Why 10% and not 5% or 15% or 25%? Who gets to decide?

I'm talking 10% over the cost of the part in the whole assembly not 10% of the product.

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

I'm talking 10% over the cost of the part in the whole assembly not 10% of the product.

Can you clarify this?

 

You mean you propose to limit the profit of a part to 10% of it's cost to manufacture?

[GDRRiley]

1 minute ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you clarify this?

 

You mean you propose to limit the profit of a part to 10% of it's cost to manufacture?

yes let me try. a laptop costs 800$ and its got a bad battery.

I'm not going to go off the cost to the oem but as its part of the total cost.

even if it only cost them 50$ if it was 12.3% of the total cost (to them) then it would be 98.4$ effectively. then add a 10% markup so the cost the the consumer to buy the part would be 108.24

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Can you clarify this?

 

You mean you propose to limit the profit of a part to 10% of it's cost to manufacture?

I think he means if the battery accounts for 10% (or $100) of the $1000 phone's cost, Apple should be prohibited from selling the part for more than $110. 

[Donut417]

On 2/28/2020 at 12:20 PM, CTR640 said:

While I completely agree with you, I'm afraid businesses won't do that anymore otherwise people will keep their phone longer instead of getting a new one each year. So less profits for them.

No they will do it. The battery will just cost a shit load. Like a few hundred dollars. Business will always find a way to make money. 

[dalekphalm]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

yes let me try. a laptop costs 800$ and its got a bad battery.

I'm not going to go off the cost to the oem but as its part of the total cost.

even if it only cost them 50$ if it was 12.3% of the total cost (to them) then it would be 98.4$ effectively. then add a 10% markup so the cost the the consumer to buy the part would be 108.24

Sorry - I'm not following where these numbers are coming from.

 

If the battery only cost them $50, it would be 6.25% of the total cost ($800).

 

Unless you're saying the laptop costed $406.50 to manufacture? (12.3% being about $50)

 

Okay so let's say the laptop costed $406.50 for them to manufacture, and the battery costed them $50 (12.3% of the total parts cost). How does that become $98.40? Where did the other $48.40 come from?

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Sorry - I'm not following where these numbers are coming from.

 

If the battery only cost them $50, it would be 6.25% of the total cost ($800).

 

Unless you're saying the laptop costed $406.50 to manufacture? (12.3% being about $50)

 

Okay so let's say the laptop costed $406.50 for them to manufacture, and the battery costed them $50 (12.3% of the total parts cost). How does that become $98.40? Where did the other $48.40 come from?

 sorry I need to work on my explanations.

Yes manufacture.

you use the percentage from manufacture cost and then apply it to the total cost.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I think he means if the battery accounts for 10% (or $100) of the $1000 phone's cost, Apple should be prohibited from selling the part for more than $110. 

Sure, but that's a dangerous precedent to set. I think government regulating a specific profit margin is a dangerous game to play.

 

Sure, in very specific circumstances, it might be prudent (or even necessary) for a market to operate fairly.

 

But here? Why let government force a set profit margin on replacement batteries? What's next? Forcing profit margins on the whole phone?